Could you please share your comments / ideas about the current status of SCM extensions? Do they work well?
I posted this a while back. Several months later have no reason to change the opinionhttp://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,13382.msg74673.html#msg74673
In addition to the above link, I find SCMs to be useful when using older (resource constrained) kit. The abilty to load/unload on-the-fly is another tool in the box that helps extend the useful life of otherwise redundant hardware.
A slightly more esoteric point. Some users see computers as the same type of machine as a TV or hob/oven. They have little interest in learning why it works. They are interested in it working reliably and predictably. Their primary desire is to enjoy the product of its use rather than explore its technical scope. For such a user, SCMs provide a good fit.
Is there any particular problem?
Not problems as such, more observations that might filter through into future development.
The objective of an SCM is to produce a fully self contained app. In circumstances where the app contains multiple sub-apps, menu clutter can result. For an example have a look at the file manager, XFE. It produces menu entries for:
- xfe (file manager)
- xfi (image viewer)
- xfp (deb and rpm package handler)
- xfv (text viewer)
- xfw (text editor)
When installing the TCZ variant of XFE it is possible to choose whether to install a sub-app. With SCM it is (quite legitimately) all-or-nothing. Suggestion
Some means of hiding unwanted menu entries would be a useful development. It would enable SCM to continue to offer the sub-apps while allowing the user to fine tune the menu.
OnBoot and OnDemand items are listed in four separate windows (2xTCZ and 2xSCM). This is a little cumbersome.Suggestion
Some means of reducing the number of windows, or a different way of presenting their (combined?) contents might be helpful.